About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
CSPAN 28
LANGUAGE
English 28
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)
, your life is short. if you criticize the pashtuns, the taliban will come after you. i want ask abdul, do you have protection if you say something that the taliban does not like? because we know karzai's brother was a big man in afghanistan and anytime someone criticized, that person never sees the day of life again. afghanis are good people, but the reality of freedom of press to me is like a joke. you cannot have freedom of press in afghanistan. afghanistan is based on tribe. -- based on tribes. host: can you hang on the line while we get an answer and then come back to you? guest: i think what john is saying is really not the reality of afghanistan. i would put it this way. i don't know if he can get the kind of subscription we have in afghanistan. you can go to my facebook, twitter, and also to my blog and see what i am doing. how i as a reporter, in a normal citizen, a journalist, criticize the government, criticized karzai, criticized -- the way people are somehow creating the problems, it does not mean what they are pashtuns or -- anyone, criticizing just coming and killing peo
-- today, your life is short but if you criticize the pashtuns, the taliban will come factory. i want asked abdul, the have protection if you say something that the taliban does not like? because we know karzai's brother was a big man in afghanistan and anytime someone criticized, that person never sees the day of life again. afghanis are good people, but the reality of freedom of press to me is like a joke. you cannot have freedom of press in afghanistan rid afghanistan is based on tripe. -- based on tribes. host: can you hang on the line while we get an answer and then come back to you? guest: i think what john is saying is really not the reality of afghanistan. i would put it this way. i don't know if he can get the kind of subscription we have in afghanistan. you can go to my facebook, twitter, and also to my blog and see what i am doing. how i as a reporter, in a normal citizen, a journalist, criticize the government, criticized karzai, criticized -- the way people are somehow creating the problems, it does not mean what they are pashtuns or -- anyone, criticizing just coming and killi
access to reporters who have access to tell of an spokesperson's? >> first off, the taliban. are not having publication inside afghanistan on. they are able and a broadening program system, it is done a lot. there claims to be from the taliban and then some of the provinces often -- this is not a permanent a radio station. the caliban spokesperson, they are having access to a number of telephones of journalists. they are sending voice messages. they're having journalists it there are and the activities from them. >> to get their side up. >> to say what they think about an issue. >> to independent and jealous. >> to many journalists across the country. what is needed for american troops, for example, before bowell from afghanistan, let's focus more, and more, and the more of the freedom of expression. it is very important to read one without a lash could drive a village people from one place to another place. from the demonstrators, with up to 40 armed one of the results of free media and the free press's is this. let's focus before the withdrawal. >> i have one question. i w
, the odds became clear. these 53 americans were surrounded by more than 300 taliban fighters. what happened next has been described as one of the most intense battles of the entire war in afghanistan. the attackers had the advantage, a high ground, the mountains above. and they run the machine -- they were unleashing everything they had, rocket-propelled grenades, mortars, snipers taking aim. to those americans coming -- to those americans down below, the fire was coming from every direction. they had never seen anything like it. gunfire impacting all around them, clinton raised to one of the barracks machine guns. he took aim at one of the enemy teams and took it out. a rocket-propelled grenade exploded, sending shrapnel into his hip, his arm, and into his neck. but he kept fighting, disregarding his own wound, and tending to an injured conrad-- comrade instead. then over the radio came words no soldier ever wants to hear. enemy in the wire. the taliban had penetrated the camp and were taking over buildings. the combat was close, at times as close as 10 feet. when clinton took aim at three
- month deadline for talks with the taliban in afghanistan. are they able to function in society? and two, what is the best strategy for the united states in afghanistan in the long term? but she has asked two really big questions. the first is to speak and to afghanistan with the taliban and whether they can be integrated into society. they do have constitutional obligations to uphold. , with the looking at united states, transitions in afghanistan as well. there's a time line of elections to be held in afghanistan, as you know. these are processes and political decisions that the afghans must make themselves. i say this, and i do want to point to the historic shift that pakistan is very consciously and proactively making. our government has been very clear, including all of our stakeholders including the military that pakistan will be making all effort to stabilize afghanistan and bring peace to the region, because it is in all of our vital interests. we cannot walk away from the region. we live right there. and a stable and prosperous and peaceful afghanistan is in the best interest of
that in total to our adversaries. in this case, it is the taliban. to get to your point about afghanistan being a base for al qaeda, it has been the goal of the administration to eliminate afghanistan as a base for al qaeda and similar elements. it remains to be seen if they can do that. a drawdown will make it more difficult for us to accomplish that in the long run. host: a couple comments on twitter, asking questions about positive accomplishments. guest: the surge was designed to replicate what happened in iraq. in iraq, you had a situation with the anbar awakening. you had the situation, being in, using local forces in order to gain the upper hand against the extremists, whether they were affiliated with al qaeda or were local sympathizers with saddam hussein. that basically worked from a military perspective. when you go to afghanistan, the time when general petraeus became the commander, the attempt was made to replicate what happened. the results were mixed. you had similar afghan units in several provinces that have been turned into a pretty decent area of success for our research effo
and not pounding on the taliban hard -- hard enough. where i disagree with that is, the soviets killed 1.2 million of people out of 24 million people. how many people mathematically-- do we have to kill? when you go to work, there are other effects. you start destroying people's houses. if the taliban comes into our house and start shooting at us, we have the legal right to level the house. if you have to through -- to survive, do it. if you don't have to come back away. people said we were being solved. if i blow up that house, even if the taliban are in it, the people who own the house if they are lucky enough not to be in there and when we blow it up, they do not feel liberated after word. afghans use to tell me, there are three outcomes, either you win, the taliban winds, or we get stuck in this protracted war. they have been at war for 34 years now. they said, we would like you to win, but our second guest is that the taliban wins. but we cannot stand is that the war goes on forever. pretty interesting and rational behavior. impossible. i do not think it is ever impossible. but i think is ver
a taliban terrorist in california, pay raise. no, freeze for three years. over the last five years one i.c.e. agent killed, one secret service agent killed, three a.t.f. agents killed, one d.e.a. agent killed, two u.s. marshals killed, air traffic controller to put the safety for my family and your family and our constituents as they fly through the sky, the n.i.h. my family has been devastated my cancer. my father died at cancer. my mother died of cancer and it's impacted on my family. dr. collins, who mapped the human genome system that will save many of you and your lives and your sons and daughters because of basically following that system, working on liver cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, which my mom died off. dr. collins and his team will have been frozen for three years. nasa, we just went through the 10th anniversary of the challenger explosion. those astronauts that sit on that rocket, those and now in the future, if you have a nasa facility in your district and they sit on that rocket to go up, they froze for three years. firefighters out in the west wh
. these 53 americans were surrounded by more than 300 taliban fighters. what happened next has been described as one of the most intense battles of the entire war in afghanistan. the attackers had the advantage, a high ground, the mountains above. and they run the machine -- they were unleashing everything they had, rocket-propelled grenades, mortars, snipers taking aim. to those americans coming -- to those americans down below, the fire was coming from every direction. they had never seen anything like it. with gun packed -- with gunfire impacting all around them, clinton raised to one of the barracks machine guns. he took aim at one of the enemy teams and took it out. a rocket-propelled grenade exploded, sending shrapnel into his hip, his arm, and into his neck. but he kept fighting, disregarding his own wound, and tending to an injured conrad instead. then over the radio came words no soldier ever wants to hear. enemy in the wire. the taliban had penetrated the camp and were taking over buildings. -- at times as close as 10 feet. when clinton took aim at three of them, they never took ano
is aced on numbers. do you have a correct report? is this leading to a reductiothg in handling the taliban. [no audio >> this was a regrettable error. we are making adjustments. in spite of the adjustments, our assessment of the progress and is continuing.anistan we have pushed the taliban out of the population centers and they have failed to retake the areas they lost. this is true. our and the lead and have provided security for 87% of the country's population. there is a tendency to fixate on one metrics. the complete picture of progress in afghanistan is more nuanced. i would encourage you to look at the overall picture. we are looking to fix this error. we will report further information as we have it from kabul. >> does the report need to be fixed? >> we will take a look at adjustments that need to be made. >> does it call into question the statistics? forces are in the lead increasingly. they are entering the numbers. many people have acknowledged the problem. do you have to do it closer review of the statistics that have been cited repeatedly? >> i do not know that we have to under
are more and more effective in powering afghan communities to defend against taliban intimidation and violence. plans are being developed to increase the authorized size of the alp program from 30,000 to 45,000. the next centcom cmander will also play an important role in shaping our enduring partnership with afghanistan after 2014. the partnership that i fully support. ike m. concerned however by the plants to reduce the afghan national security forces by a third starting in 2015. 352,000 to 230,000 by 2017. i believe that any future reductions in the size of the afghan forces should be based on security conditions in afghanistan at that time and this afghan security forces make and providing for their country security, we should reassure them that we will continue to support these efforts by deciding that as we withdraw our forces that the won't get drawdo and afghan forces. progress in afghanistan remains fragile and significant challenges to afghanistan's long-term stability remain. among the greatest threat to its stability are the safe havens for afghan insurgents across the
afghan force would help to hedge against any future taliban mischief. you can reasonably expect that an enemy that has been that determined, that agile, will very soon try to test the afghan security forces. that size of a force provides additional capability to allow the political process is too mature a bit. because of that, it seems a larger force would be a benefit. >> thank you. just one question for you, general rodriguez. this has to do with an extremist force that is desirable and other contingency-response forces that would be useful to put the africomm commander in a position to respond to benghazi. if you have not been asked that question, can you tell us whether you would look for ways to find the greater capability to provide contingency response forces beyond what they currently are and were in the case of the benghazi matter? >> yes, sir, i would. i will report back to the committee on that. they have made significant improvements and we have to continue to do that. >> thank you both. we look forward to your confirmation. i want to thank the senator for taking ove
, the taliban and associated forces in response to the 9/11 attacks and we may also use force consistent with our inherent right of national self-defense. there is nothing in international law that bans the use of remotely pilotted aircraft for this purpose or that prohibits us from using lethal force against our enemies outside of an active battlefield at least when the country involved con cents or is unwilling to take action against a threat. second, targeted strikes are ethical. without question, the ability to target a specific individual from hundreds or thousands of miles away raises profound questions. here, i think it is useful to consider such strikes against the basic principle of the law of war that govern the use of force. targeted strikes conform to the principle of necessity. requirement that the target has definite military value. in this armed conflict, individuals who are part of al qaeda or its associated forces are legitimate military targets. we have the authority to target them with lethal force, just as we target enemy leaders in past conflicts such as them and the
in afghanistan about the taliban and after that i was here in boston visiting jenna. we went shopping and delays and the cosmetic counter in the department store and came up and said thank you so much for speaking for women in afghanistan. that was really the first time that i thought, they heard me. -- in austin. i think i knew the first lady had a podium, but i did not really know until after that. >> c-span has this first of a kind project for television, examining the public and private lives of the women to serve as first lady. season one begins next monday president's day at 9:00 a.m. eastern and pacific on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on mondays we take a look at your money, how taxpayer dollars are being spent. our focus today is rebuilding afghanistan. john sopko is our guest. he's the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. we were just talking about you have your own acronym in washington, that's important. the price tag so far for rebuilding afghanistan, $87 billion. what is your role in overseeing that money? guest:
of the president. i support him. we cannot change the equation at this point in time. the taliban have been determined to relentlessly attacked the afghan government. we have to not pull out and make sure we focus on a counterterrorism strategy compared to the surge strategy, which did not accomplish its goal. host: another word that was not mentioned was the use of drones in the confirmation hearing. guest: this is a controversial subject. i fall on the side of supporting our drone program relentlessly sorting our drone program to protect our troops and to prevent the united states from being harmed by terrorists. when al qaeda operatives were taken out by drones >>> in afghanistan and yemen -- by drone strikes in afghanistan and elsewhere, i commended the president for his counterterrorism policy. it has protected the homeland as best as any weapon we could have. it has been an effective way of putting al qaeda on the defense and keeping them on the run. the president deserves congratulations for being relentlessly consistent and persistent in his drone program. does that mean it has been
. but the public report came out on september 28. and in that report it said that local taliban was working with war lords to provide guards and weapons for use in the contract. it came out they were failing to adequately investigate the forwards' previous employment which resulted in hiring individuals who had been fired for sharing sensitive information, security information work taliban war lords. failure to appropriately vet guards, some of whom, according to u.s. intelligence reports, may have been involved in anti-american activities. now all of that information was out in the classified way several weeks before september 10, excuse me, september 28, an was out in public september 28.
out secret effort to persuade the taliban to expel bin laden. as we know, bin laden was not expelled. three months later, his wrath was unleashed with an attack on our embassies. did you advise director tenant against this operation? and if so, why? >> i had a conversation with george and that at the time. every single cia manager, george tennant as deputy director of operations at the time, and other individuals at the counter-terrorism center argued against that operation as well because it was not well grounded in intelligence, and its chances of success were minimal. and it was likely that other individuals would be killed. when i was involved in those discussions, i provided the director and others my professional advice about whether i thought that operation should go forward. i also was engaged in discussion with the saudi government at the time. and i encouraged certain action to be taken to put pressure on the taliban as well as bin laden. >> i take it that your answer to my question is that you did advise in favor of the cancellation of that operation. >> based on what i ha
to afghanistan shortly after the fall of the taliban. as you know, under the taliban government, little girls weren't allowed to go to school or taught to read and there are penalties for those in privacy and secret to teach them to read. i never been more proud of our government because one of the things the u.s. aid department did was set up reading programs for these little girls, many of them now 13-15, never in their life had a chance to read. i went into this room and it was very crowded and smelly because there was not much running water in afghanistan at the time and was very dirty but here these little girls were learning -- these young women were learning to read and i -- we talked with them through a translator and one of them told me one day when they learned to read, she wanted to write a book. i was at the time writing my book and i said well, is there something i could say on your behalf in my book until you get around to writing yours? and her answer through the translator was immediate. and she said, women should be free to go to work and to go to school and to choose their o
address about this, about the treatment of women and children in afghanistan by the taliban. i was here visiting jenna and we went shopping. elease at the cosmetic counter in the department store came up and said thank you so much for speaking for women in afghanistan. that was really the first time i thought, they heard me. i think i knew intellectually that the first lady had a podium but i did not really know it until after that. >> the new series, first ladies, influence and image. the first of its kind project for television, examining the public and private lives of the women who served as first lady. season one begins next monday, president's day, at 9:00 p.m. eastern and pacific. >> now, discussion about journalism and digital media. the publisher and editor-in- chief of the new republic spoke at harvard's kennedy school for an hour. >> be sure to turn off your cellphone, please. >> hello, i'm alex jones. we're very glad to have you with us today. it is my pleasure to welcome hewes to the ranks of the ink stained wretches of this world which he has entered, world stage in tradit
in afghanistan by the taliban. we went shopping. ladies that the cosmetics counter in the department store came up and said thank you so much for speaking for women in afghanistan. that was the first time i thought, hey, they heard me. i knew what ladybird had set of course. host: laura bush in tehran words on the use of first lady -- in her own words. we have all the first ladies in their own words. you can go to the website and see what many people have said about the role of the first lady. that is all on our website, c- span.org \firstladies. this is one from martha washington. host: "steady as a clock, busy as a bee." host: jordan, democratic caller. caller: i love all the first lady's and have loved all the first ladies in all my years. are anothert lady's voice piece for any and every issue that we should be talking about in our country and around the world. they promote any type of legislation or any of the issues that we need to be talking about. they get to use that in one of the most public personas through the media. there is no way any of the presidents of the united states would h
. a larger force, afghan force would help to hedge against any future taliban mischief and we expect y could reasonably expect that an enemy that's been that determined, that agile, will very soon after retranslation try to test the afghan security forces. further, that provides the process is to mature a bit, so i think because of that, it seems to me the larger force is a benefit. >> generalrodriguez, this has to do in extremis force that is desirable another contingency response force is would be useful to put the african commander and a position to contingencies such as we saw it in benghazi. if you've not been asked that question, tell us what they would look for ways to find greater capability to provide forces beyond what they currently are and where in the case of the benghazi matter. >> yes, senator senator i would end if confirmed, that will be one of the top priorities i have and will report to the committee and dave made significant improvements that we have to continue to do that. >> thank you, both. i want to thank senator king. it's very much appreciated. >> thank you, sir. [i
and defeated the taliban on our behalf not the mean he of our enemy, but these are radical islamic jihadists who want a cal fate -- caliphate in which the united states is sub jew dated to a religious -- subjugated to a religious ruler and they are willing to use violence if necessary, although the muslim brotherhood now seems to indicate that here in america they have made so much progress in infiltrating and getting positions of power in our government, our state department, in our homeland security department, in our justice department, at the white house directly, and direct lines to the president, they have made so much progress in moving toward that goal of a caliphate here in the united states under shari'a law, not under the constitution, that they are thinking maybe violence is not the way forward in america to achieve their goal of making this a shari'a compliant caliphate. but the muslim brotherhood around the world believes many places violence is the way forward in those areas. but we've got to understand who we are facing and what they want to do. and secretary clinton, unfortu
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)